Do you actually mean that having only a setter is not valid ? On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 17:32, Lin Sun <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, I think that makes sense. I'll open a JIRA to address this. > > Thanks everyone for the comments! > > Lin > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jarek Gawor <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Rick McGuire <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 8/24/2010 4:13 AM, Valentin Mahrwald wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Aries blueprint may call getters for chained property access >>>> >>>> <property name="foo.bar" value="..." />, >>>> >>>> but I would argue the scenario below even though dodgy can still be >>>> supported. Essentially, I think there maybe a scenario where the setter >>>> takes a primitive value but the getter >>>> returns a complex object constructed from the primitive. In that scenario >>>> having different arg types might be useful. >>>> >>>> So I would think this should be a warning rather than an error scenario, >>>> but having the warning is probably quite useful. >>> >>> It was certainly the intent of the blueprint specification that the >>> setter/getter method names follow the JavaBeans design pattern of having >>> type matches when both a getter and setting method is implemented by the >>> target class. This was definitely discussed during the final spec writing >>> phase and the compliance tests also contain a test that validates that this >>> is an error. >>> >> >> Right. So in short there must be a matching getter and setter of the >> same type and there might be additional setters that take other types. >> >> Jarek >> >
-- Cheers, Guillaume Nodet ------------------------ Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ ------------------------ Open Source SOA http://fusesource.com
